Craddock v. Craddock

Supreme Court of Colorado

Craddock v. Craddock

8 P.2d 1112, 90 Colo. 284, 1932 Colo. LEXIS 243

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedFebruary 15, 1932

DocketNo. 12,720.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 P.2d 1112 (Craddock v. Craddock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Craddock v. Craddock, 8 P.2d 1112, 90 Colo. 284, 1932 Colo. LEXIS 243 (Colo. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Alter has not participated in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Chief Justice Adams and Justices Burke and Campbell are of the opinion that it should be affirmed, whereas Justices Butler, Moore and Hilliard are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As it must therefore be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Alter has not participated in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Chief Justice Adams and Justices Burke and Campbell are of the opinion that it should be affirmed, whereas Justices Butler, Moore and Hilliard are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As it must therefore be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 P.2d 1112, 90 Colo. 284, 1932 Colo. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craddock-v-craddock-colo-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack